Colin Powell sat side-by-side today with Prince Abdullah to announce his support for the Saudi plan to send Islamic troops to Iraq. You remember Abdullah, don’t you, the man who recently said of terrorism in his country:
This is seduction. You all know who is behind it all. Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don’t say, I mean‚Ķ It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.
(You can find this rather horrifying discussion live here, if you haven’t seen it already.)
Of course, “95 percent” may be a signal in Abdullah’s World that he is “fibbing” (let’s hope so) because the new plan may turn out to be useful, at least in the short run. It seems to have the backing of Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi who so far has shown himself to be a skillful politician in a difficult situation. To put it mildly, I don’t envy people living in those societies. Years ago, when I spent some time in the Soviet Union visiting Soviet writers, I got a sense of what day-to-day existence under a totalitarian government can do to your mind. I am sure in a religious-fascist state or a “kingdom” like Saudi Arabia it is much the same. The extraordinary rigors of that life could even effect your DNA.
I’m not quite sure Saudi forces can be trusted. A fair portion of them seem to already be working with AQ, considering some of the ‘masterful’ escapes in recent months when AQ elements have been surrounded by Saudis. Then again, the Iraqi terrorists might realize that the Saudis aren’t necessarily going to play by the same rulebook as the Americans.
How is it that Abdullah found out about our dastardly plan! Roger, you me and the other Jews in the International Zionist Conspiracy (R) must find a way to silence him…
All joking aside, it is an interesting question about whether or not it’s right to use someone like that. They may say repulsive things, but their help might be necessary. No easy answers either way, I think.
The arab thought process can readily believe what he says. It fits neatly into their world view and gives them an answer which is acceptable. It is the “wet streets cause rain” sort of thinking.
And millions of muslims around the world still believe that 4000 Jews were warned not to go to work in the Twin Towers because that fits neatly too.
We have to understand that reason in the arab world is not the same as western thinking. And deal with them on that basis.
Given a choice between Abdullah and the Saudis and Chirac and the U.N., I vote Abdullah and the Saudis. Either choice is fundamentally repulsive from our viewpoint, but Abdullah and the Saudis at least have a clearly defined interest (self-preservation) in a stable and peaceful Iraq…Chirac and the U.N. have no such interest.
Thank God Colin Powell is usually overruled on the policy level. This President’s instincts of course are to use the Teddy Roosevelt tactic of “talking softly but carrying a big stick.” In other words use Colin’s diplomacy skills (talk) and Rumsfeld/Cheney policy (stick). This president may rhetorically show some interest in the idea but he will not do this in a meaningful way. It is too destabilizing to work this way and as far a Zionism being the issue? I agree that is a canard. Zionism is in fact the “scapegoat” and actually their is no solution found in addressing Zionism issues as solving the problems (unless the extintion of Jews is your agenda) and this President has proven to understand this. I agree with Ed Koch who said the top three pro-Israel Presidents in U.S. history in this order are:
1) George W. Bush
2) Ronald Reagan
3) Bill Clinton
I would tend to agree with this… Zionism isn’t the problem, Islamo-Fascism is, and again thank God this President gets this.
Michael Ledeen alluded to the fact that it is President Bush who most uniquely “gets this” in his last column…
That’s why the public figure who has best understood the nature of the war, and has best defined our enemy, is George W. Bush. Of all people! He had it right from the start: We have been attacked by many terrorist groups and many countries that support the terrorists. It makes no sense to distinguish between them, and so we will not. We’re going after them all.
http://jewishworldreview.com/michael/ledeen072004.asp
–
I’d like to say that Watching Zell Miller tear the Democrats a “new one” so to speak, Sean asked if their were any Democrats he respected and the name Joe Lieberman was the first to come from his mouth (he also mentioned Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson) Of course if these types were in leadership positions and the party faithful to them then I wouldn’t even dream of supporting Republicans. This of course is not going to happen as 9 out of 10 delegate members disagree with Joe Liebermans on Iraq.
Joe Lieberman, who came on after Zell, did not disappoint in fact like you Roger I did a double take and was greatly appreciative of Joe’s response. Joe even allowed Sean to “put words in his mouth” and still stuck with it, like you I am now more respecting of Joe.
–
I agree with you on Reza Torkzadeh, he would be perfect. That being said I am thinking about the line up for Republicans compared to Democrats and I fully expect the Republican convention to be more interesting, it will be the first I watch “in support” and I am grateful that I am not watching the current Democratic Convention in anticipation of Kerry making his case and hoping for November to break my way.
I very much agree with Goof’s take on this election and about Kerry just needing to “close the deal”. Unlike Goof however I would not share the hope or sense he has turned any corner as I know better. Kerry must make changing horses midstream a safe choice and I don’t see him doing that. I’m sure the accumulation of a Republican Convention and debates will prove this. Kerry has too much baggage, he will be brought down…
way too many days to go.
This proposal scares me because I don’t think the Crown Prince is really in control in Saudi Arabia.
The fellow who runs the security forces (can’t remember his name) seems to be squarely behind the Islamofascists and the Wahabbists—and seems to have a lot of power independent of the Crown Prince. I will go to my grave convinced that he (and the Saudi security forces) were bought off and allowed the terrorists to escape after the Memorial Day compound violence…
And surely this would be the same fellow who would oversee funding and training of an Iraqi military under the Saudi Plan?
And I wouldn’t hold Abdullah or the Saudis to a standard that we can’t hold Leftist America to. You can get the same rhetoric during just about any pro-Palestinian rally on any U.S. campus on any given day from good old-fashioned U.S. students and educators. What you won’t get from them is any good-faith attempt to bring peace and stability to Iraq.
Robin Wright of the Washington Post broke this story last night (in the last 24 hours it has been revised considerably, with some notable deletions that I’ve pointed out in this thread.
Ms. Wright’s article makes it clear the PM Allawi demands that any proposed Muslim occupation force be placed under the authority of the Iraqi goverment. The Saudi plan would put their surrogates under the nominal control of Kofi Annan.
This ploy by the Saudis has but one purpose: to halt by any means possible the implementation of democratic processes in a Muslim country, particularly one that borders Saudi Arabia.
DennisThePeasant
And being the “pro-Palestinian rally on any U.S. campus” is supported by young Democrats, the future of the Democratic Party looks very bleak to me. Like I said the other day, I’d rather be a liberal-moderate suburban Republican than a moderate Democrat and the example you give is the overridding difference.
mrp
This ploy by the Saudis has but one purpose: to halt by any means possible the implementation of democratic processes in a Muslim country
And like I said in my first post this President “get’s it” and will never allow such a thing to happen period, unfortunately Kerry is another matter.
I can’t pretend to know about the vagaries of how leaders in middle eastern countries communicate, but there is a certain “pay no attention to what I say in public, I really am on board with you” feel to these comments.
There is an ugly truth exposed here: that we often end up cozying up to many of the folks we have serious and important issues with, a la Saddam back in the 80′s out of a need to choose the lesser of two evils.
No Michael Moore rump swab am I, but he has this much right in his movie: we are far to tightly coupled with the Saudis. His mistake is to place blame and responsibility for the existance, persistance, and pervasiveness for that with Bush rather than our broader government, including State and the Congress.
too many steves
Michael Moore… His mistake is to place blame and responsibility for the existance, persistance, and pervasiveness for that with Bush rather than our broader government
NOOOO! Michael Moore’s mistake is being a lying propagandist and hypocrite with no regard for truth or bringing down others through such tactics. Of course all this is justified by the “ends justifies the means” state of the left and their pursuit of perfect “ideology”. That is why I am no longer on “the left.” Steve a truth in the middle of lies are bastardized facts, it devalues them. Of course half-truths are the most damnable of all lies and that makes Michael Moore the most damnable human being.
Two comments:
If the strings Abdullah want attached are unacceptable to the U.S., there will be no Saudi presence. Let’s say, for example, Australia had wanted the U.N. to run the show as a condition for its contribution of 5,000 (?) troops. We would have told the Aussies thanks, but no thanks. I don’t see where Saudi involvement is much more than cosmetics to enable the Bush Administration to say the coalition is not wholly composed of infidels.
MRP–
That said, I really don’t see how are the Saudi troops can destabilize the situation. They could be placed in Sunni areas, I suppose. But what can a small contingent in uniform really do to stop progress? Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t really see the grand anti-democracy strategy unfolding here.
FA,
Small units possessing operational intelligence can pass that intelligence to insurgents. Prime Minister Allawi would be crazy to allow Sunni troops to come in aid of putting down a Sunni insurgency. Unless, of course, they were detailed to protect the Turkish border.
I think that this may be “table setting” diplomacy setting the stage for a confrontation with Iran. We will need the Saudi’s guarantee to keep pumping in order to avoid disruption of the world economy when Iran is ‘sanctioned’. There may be a little hint of that in Russia’s decision to force Yuko’s bankruptcy. Better that it occur now than have it occur when Iran’s spigot is turned off.
This whole thing is complex. I agree that the Saudis do not want democracy to succeed in Iraq, although they might be less happy with an Al Qaeda haven.
I cannot imagine us trusting them to do any good in Iraq. They are the keepers of the heart of darkness.
This may be tied to the internal Saudi succession struggle between Abdullah and Sultan, one which has at times threatened to turn into a civil war, since Abdullah controls the National Guard and Sultan controls the rest of the military.
Put another way, it’s not at all clear what is going on here.
I see our relations with the Saudi’s differently. Much of what we have done seems to be saying nice doggie until we get the proper stick.
The Saudiís are definitely exporting hate and Wahabism. But, if we look at times in priority order, they are not acquiring nukes, and bio weapons. They are now being given a chance to clean up on their own while we take care of the more immediate problems. As much as Iíd like to go cowboy, declaring war on Saudi Arabia would not help the situation. Both the US and the Islamic-fascists are playing divide and conquer games. The Islamic-Fascists have had their victories in Spain and the Philippines. We have had ours in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Ours have been fairly substantial, while theirs have drawn a lot of press. We have created a situation where they are attacking their own base to ìfire them upî. Right now, I see us keeping the pressure on them, more than they are pressuring us. Why else would the “take time out from war” argument have any appeal? If we were getting pounded weekly by terrorism in the US, we won’t be talking about time out. We would be talking massive bombing in retaliation.
Pushing the Saudis, with Mecca and Medina under their control, to the position of the Iranians gives the Islamic- Fascist side the appearance of war against Islam that Osama wanted to start with the 9/11 attacks. If we take down Iran and Syria, re-establish in them semi-secular societies, the Saudis will be cornered. Until then, it behooves us to play nice with the Saudi proposals and let the other side push them our way. Colin Powell is being the good soldier, fighting a delaying action until we are ready. If he fights it well enough, the Saudis might even be spent by the time we get around to them.
As mentioned by mrp, it now does appear that the Saudi plan will place the troops under the control of U.N. commanders, which in all respects simply means they are the surrogates of Chirac and Annan.
So much for Saudi good will.
Too Many Steves-
What nearly all of America does not wish to confront is the fact that they want big cars and SUVs, no mass transit, cheap energy, no drilling or mining or refining or generating in the U.S. environment and no foreign dependence for anything related to energy. This has nothing to do with “the government” and everything to do with the citizenry.
It is easy to proclaim that we should build cars that drive like a Ferrari, are as safe as a Volvo, are as reliable as a Toyota, get 50 miles to the gallon, and cost about $5,000. The trick is building the damn thing.
Our citizenry has not yet even begun to contemplate the tradeoffs involved in formulating an energy policy that differs substantially from the one we have now. Until we do in some sort of serious way, you can’t hold the government responsible for not taking it seriously either.
Well, I wonder…
I figure that the real underlying problem in the War on Terror is that, for decades, Middle Eastern governments have been able to covertly support Terrorist groups in their borders. This worked as long as those groups were channeling discontent away from their corrupt regimes and towards external (ie; Isreal and the West) targets.
Forget the Arab street, I always figured the message of Iraq was aimed at other palaces in the ME. The much puzzled over Shock and Awe, which involved pumping several hundred missles and bombs into palaces, seemed less a message to the Republican Guard than a message to other ME rulers. The sweet life can come to an end.
As I understand Saudi history, and I am admittadly little more than a dilletente, modern Saudua Arabia came about has a coalition between the House of Su’ud and the Wahabi tribe in central Saudia Arabia. Wether the House of Su’ud stands or falls is irrelevent, crushing the wahabi’s is central to turning the corner on the WOT.
I say make it clear to the House of Su’ud their only chance of survival is at our pleasure. Embrace the House of Su’ud while it is convenient, and drive the wedge deeper between they and the Wahabis at the same time.
Roger:
Whether Powell’s gambit with the saudi’s is positive or not depends on what the motivation behind it is. I think it is reasonable to try to get some Arab involvement or at least acceptance of the new Iraqi government. if Powell is talking to saudi’s with this intent then I am all for it. If this is part of a exit/escape plan then it is craven cowardice.I do not trust the House of Saud at all so my initial response is no way. But if Powell sets up a system that Allawi can accept and that does not put him under the thumb of the UN then I would listen to the idea.
In regards to artist living under a totalitarian government i think the Russian Poet Mandelstam had it right when he responded to the Idea that poetry was more respected in the Soviet Union “where people are killed for it more then anywhere else”.His wife Nadezhda commented on the feckless nature of some artists in regards to their partial resposability for the great terror-”They deny responsibility for what happened later, But how can they? It was, after all, these people of the Twenties who demolished the old values and invented the formulas… to justify the unprecedented experiment: every new killing was excused on the grounds we were building a remarkable ‘new’ world,” Michael Moore and the Hollywood left should memorize that quote.
DtP,
These threads take the oddest turns… We Americans are as whacky with our ideas regarding energy policy as we are about immigration policy. The only policies we want are the ones that are either impossible or would be unacceptable.
We want “independence” from foreign oil w/o nukes or light rail or drilling anywhere where there’s freakin’ oil. We want cheap gas w/o oil companies or wells – and let’s tax the heck out of it as soon as we get it!
We want a Manhattan Project to develop hydrogen as a fuel but we sure aren’t willing to take federal dollars away from any sacred cow projects to pay for it and, even if it is possible, we’ll scream bloody murder as the infrastructure gets converted and we have to pay the price at “the pump” and auto dealerships or conversion yards.
Call me cynical, but I can’t see the Saudi Wahabists–the guys responsible for inspiring most of the Islamists terror in the first place–acting as the guardians of liberty in the newly democratic Iraq. First off, S.A.’s own restive populace, already chafing under its totalitarian leadership, would likely see such championing as a reason to demand reforms at home. Secondly,this is just a way for the Saudis to assert themselves at the expense of Iraqui Shias. I am reminded of the Saudi “peace proposal” of a couple years ago, the one trumpetted by Thomas L. Friedman of the NYT. That, too, was a totally bogus exercise that, thankfully, no one but TLF was gullible enough to entertain. If Colin Powell is giving serious consideration to this proposal, it’s a sign that we are in much worse shape than we think.
Dennis the Peasant has hit another one out of the park. Who’s responsible for our cozying up to the Saudis? We, the people, are.
The whole energy/oil shtick is really all about money. Cold hard cash. Actually doing something about energy dependence or energy problems would cost us. It would cost so much, and be so severe, that the immediate shock to the economy really would throw us into the Great Depression, not the imaginary depression the Democrats have convinced themselves of. There are plenty of alternatives to Saudi oil, they just cost a lot. Costs can be borne in different ways. We can have dirtier air. We can have more drilling in Alaska. We can ride to work on crowded buses which take all day to get there. But none of that is the way it is imagined. Read Dennis’s post above for that.
Instead we get vague platitudes and magical thinking. “Just get those engineers to find some new materials.” Those engineers need to wave their magic wand once again.
I dislike greatly the increased propensity for blaming Big Daddy Government for everything that goes wrong in life and taking no responsibility for it ourselves. I dislike greatly the pandering the political parties are willing to do and the way that the MSM is willing to give them cover for this (well, in truth there’s only one political party I have in mind here). I dislike greatly that not a single reporter on the national level is willing to ask the hard questions or remind of us the real reality. We’re increasingly led down the magical primrose path of vague meaningless promises without any application of the reasoning parts of the brain to the likely consequences or tradeoffs involved.
We are pandered to and babied on every side. We are never required to deal with reality. Most Americans can no longer even recognize reality. How could they? They’ve never seen it rear its ugly head. Read Lilek’s bleat today:
“The only thing we have to fear is Bush, who sits as we speak in the Oval Office sucking the marrow from WhoopiÔøΩs shin-bones.
If so, I wonder why anyone agreed to the stringent security policies that characterize this yearÔøΩs conventions. Why the bomb-sniffing dogs? Why the snipers? Why the metal detectors, the invasive inspection of bags? Is it all an elaborate defense against Bush crashing the party and setting off a bomb belt, shouting God is Great, y’all!
No, they’re fearful of something else.
Damned if I know what, though. Damned if I know.”
We don’t know what reality is in the economy, we don’t know what reality is vis a vis the Islamofascists, and we don’t know what reality is on energy policy, and no one even wants to begin to talk about it. (Except for Steven den Beste.) We aren’t allowed to know what reality is and we wouldn’t want to see it if we were.
“Edwards offers hope.” Yes, I’m sure he does.
DTP: but that sort of leadership does not come from the citizenry, we are all too busy just living our lives while occasionally giving these issues thought or comment.
That isn’t intended as an excuse, just reality.
So our government is giving us what we want: relatively cheap and affordable oil. This means the Middle East really is all about the oil in the sense that oil is roughly equivalent to security – both physical and economic.
But can you imagine a president saying anything like that out loud?
Apparently Pakistan is also considering sending troops to Iraq.
Fresh Air (10:01 AM post)
My concern is focused on the command-and-control question of the proposed Muslim occupation force. To be fair, this is also an issue clearly expressed by the US and Iraqi governments.
From the article by Robin Wright:
The United States is particularly concerned about issues of command and control. During two weeks of discussions between the Bush administration and the kingdom, which shares a long border with Iraq, the United States was initially skeptical because its own requests to Muslim countries had been largely spurned. But an invitation by a Muslim country, responding to mounting concerns in the Islamic world about Iraq, may elicit more interest, especially if it is seen as a way of getting U.S. forces out of Iraq, Arab sources said. Saudi Arabia, as the oil-rich guardian of the Islamic world’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, has significant influence among Muslims worldwide. (emphasis added)
Another WP article, this time by Doug Struck, offers a perspective from the Iraqi interim government’s point of view:
Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abbawi, using softer language, said, “We do have troubles with neighboring countries in general.”
“They see an American army on their doorstep. This raises a lot of apprehension with them,” Abbawi said. The authoritarian governments are worried that a democratic and pluralistic Iraq could foment unrest in their own countries, he said, and some of those countries want to continue the attacks against the United States to keep the Americans on the defensive.
“With our borders wide open, so many of these organizations and people who have their own ends see Iraq as a good stage for this battle,” Abbawi said in an interview Sunday. “They are coming from Iran, from Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. We don’t accuse the governments, but we think they are not doing enough at the borders to prevent infiltration.”
Perhaps this proposed Islamic force might be better deployed along the Iraqi border inside the nations of Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
My gut feeling is that this is all a complex diplomatic minuet of some sort – that none of the parties involved (Iraq, U.S., Saudi Arabia) really want Saudi troops in Iraq, but all find it diplomatically useful to entertain the idea. For whatever reason, it won’t happen, but it’ll fail to happen in such a way that none of the parties lose face over it.
Part of it is I can’t see Saudi troops being of much use militarily – not enough to be worth the political negatives, anyhow. Garrison troops at best, though I may be wrong on this.
None of the muslim nations can field troops or units that are up to US, British, or Austrailian standards.
Pakistan might be able to field some semi-useful forces. They have some experience and have been involved with UN peacekeeping missions (no recomendation, I understand). As I recall they lost more troops in Somalia than the US did.
I vaguely recall that some SA forces did reasonably well in the first Gulf War.
After that I expect any other muslim nation would provide troops similar to what was easily witnessed in news footage from the first Gulf War. I remember watching news footage about the great help we were getting from countries like Egypt and they showed and Egyptian artillery crew that was downright comical if they hadn’t been handling hi-explosives. I don’t know what they were providing us but it wasn’t help and the safest place to be when that artillery crew was firing was probably exactly where they were supposed to be shelling.
As David C. said this is some sort of political dance that will likely come to nothing. I’d wager its got more to do with making some sort of “statement” to Iran than anything else.
On competent Muslim forces: By most accounts, Turkish forces are excellent – very professional, generally well-led. I remember reading they were especially prized for their role in Afghanistan as an example to the Afghans of a non-corrupt Muslim army worth emulating.
Of course, in the context of Iraq, Turkish forces would be even more politically incendiary than Saudis, so they’d be out of the question for this particular scenario….
Baby rats are just like us. They want their mommy.
Oxytoxin dearest
One of the interesting angles to this is what happens when Syrians and Iranians start killing Saudis, Pakistanis, and Egyptians.
This could be fascinating.
If nothing else, simply the fact that they are Arab, rather than American may be enough to quell some or even much of the violence.
Just saw The Human Stain. Maybe Powell is Jewish and is hiding it.
Okay, he’s probably doing his job and is the carrot to someone else’s stick.
My gut feeling is that this is all a complex diplomatic minuet of some sort – that none of the parties involved (Iraq, U.S., Saudi Arabia) really want Saudi troops in Iraq, but all find it diplomatically useful to entertain the idea.
The more details we get on this proposal, the more I think David C has hit the nail on the head.
Too Many Steves-
If you are a C.P.A. in public practice long enough, you eventually end up with someone at your door complaining that “they always seem to be broke” (or some sort of variation on that theme) and they want you to go over their finances and find out what is “wrong”. Invariably, and I do mean invariably, what you discover is that you have a new client who is not living within their means.
Now, the first time or two you get this type of client, you put in all sorts of effort detailing out where all the money goes, preparing a household budget, and listing out recommendations as to what needs to be done to bring spending in line with earning. Then you sit the client down in a formal meeting and show them all this wonderful stuff and go over everything in detail…it is all professional, by-the-book, high quality work.
What happens next is either (a) the client thanks you and you never see him again, or (b) the client tells you you are full of shit and fires you. This happens because people do not react well, ever, when you start talking to them about adopting a lifestyle that involves fewer goodies than the one they have now. They do not want you to give them analysis and budgets and advice. They want you to make it go away; “You’re the accountant. Do something.”
After the first couple of experiences with this type of client, what you do is collect your fee and show them the door. Permanently.
It really isn’t up to the “government” to rationize our nation’s energy policy…and none will because each and every choice available involves both unpleasantness and sacrifice. Period. Any U.S. administration that seriously proposed unpleasantness and sacrifice for energy self-sufficiency would soon be an ex-administration. People don’t want energy self-sufficiency…they want “government” to make it all go away. You know, do something.
Ergo, I drive my two and half ton, 4.3 liter V-8 sport utility vehicle without a tinge of guilt…and I get irritable when I get the “SUVs are bad for the environment” thingee (ask Eric Deamer, he will verify that). It ain’t about SUVs versus farty little Honda hybrids…it is about $5 a gallon gas, serious vehicle taxes, mandatory urban planning, mass transit, etc., etc., etc….and it is all, most assuredly, about oil.
John Kerry doesn’t drive a tofu-powered SUV, and none of the Heinz estates are heated by mung beans. And windmills are not generating the light in the Fleet Center tonight.
The odd sleepover sometimes pays off,from MSNBC NewS
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan has arrested a Tanzanian al-Qaida suspect wanted by the United States in the 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the interior minister said Friday. He said the suspect was cooperating and had given authorities ìvery valuableî information.
Dennis,Even if the problem is sorted out the cry will be “Its all about horses”.Actually do you know how much methane and dung a horse economy produces? I reckon your SUV is cleaner but not as good for the roses.
Well, I’m so glad I’m livin’ in the U.S.A.
Yes. I’m so glad I’m livin’ in the U.S.A.
Anything you want, we got right here in the U.S.A.
Credit to Chuck Berry
Salutations, Samuel.
I was one day (and at least one comma) over yesterday.
96 days to go and I’m so glad.
Despite Saudi spin etc. what really seems to be on the table on the Iraqi side is no Saudi troops at all, but just their blessing to help convince Egyptian, Pakistani, etc. troops to appear. And that apparently just to protect the UN.
Where this gets the Iraqis isn’t clear — maybe just UN election monitors. But like I said in the last thread, Allawi’s not stupid. He knows Iraq’s neighbors have way too many conflicting interests to let ‘em run free in his country.